CMNT_TITLE

The Committee has noted the Government’s reply to its earlier comments.

Article 1(c) of the Convention. Since many years the Committee has been referring to sections 5, 6 and 7 of the Act for the Prevention of Desertion or Undue Absence from Merchant Ships, B.E. 2466 (1923), which provide for the forcible conveyance of seafarers on board ship to perform their duties. The Committee previously noted the Government’s indications that the Act had not been applied during the past decade and requested the Government to bring it into conformity with the Convention and with the indicated practice.

The Government indicates in its 2003 report that measures have been taken to repeal the above sections of the Act, since they seem obsolete and not appropriate to current circumstances. It states that the Royal Thai Police, which is responsible for the Act, agreed with the Ministry of Labour that these provisions should be repealed, and that the Ministry has advised the Office of the Council of State to consider repealing the Act. The Committee has noted this information with interest and expresses the firm hope that the abovementioned provisions will soon be repealed and the legislation brought into conformity with the Convention, as well as with the indicated practice.

In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to sections 131 and 133 of the Labour Relations Act, B.E. 2518 (1975), under which penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) may be imposed on any employee who, even individually, violates or fails to comply with an agreement on terms of employment or a decision on a labour dispute under sections 18(2), 22(2), 23 to 25, 29(4), or 35(4) of the Labour Relations Act. The Committee pointed out that sections 131 to 133 of the Labour Relations Act were incompatible with the Convention.

The Government indicates in its 2003 report that the Ministry of Labour is planning to conduct research on the effect of law enforcement so as to identify the problems and to find out a possibility of law revision or amendment regarding the above provisions.

The Committee trusts that the necessary measures will at last be taken with a view to bringing the above provisions into conformity with the Convention and that the Government will soon be able to report the progress made in this regard.

Article 1(d). The Committee previously noted that penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) may be imposed for participation in strikes under following provisions of the Labour Relations Act: (i) section 140 read together with section 35(2), if the Minister orders the strikers to return to work as usual, being of the opinion that the strike may cause serious damage to the national economy or hardship to the public or may affect national security or be contrary to public order; (ii) section 139 read together with section 34(4), (5) and (6), if the party required to comply with an arbitrator’s award under section 25 has done so, if the matter is awaiting the decision of the Labour Relations Committee or a decision has been given by the Minister under section 23(1), (2), (6) or (8) or by the committee under section 24, or if the matter is awaiting the award of labour disputes arbitrators appointed under section 25.

Having noted the Government’s indications in its report that the Ministry of Labour is planning to conduct a study on the effect of law enforcement so as to identify the problems and to assess appropriateness of law revision or amendment with a view to bringing the above provisions into conformity with the Convention, the Committee reiterates its hope that these provisions will be limited in scope to essential services in the strict sense of the term (that is, services whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population), so as to ensure compliance with the Convention on this point.

Over a number of years, the Committee has been referring to section 117 of the Criminal Code, under which participation in any strike with the purpose of changing the laws of the State, coercing the Government or intimidating the people is punishable with imprisonment (involving compulsory labour). The Committee has noted the Government’s repeated statement that section 117 is essential for national peace and security and does not deprive workers of their labour rights or of the right to strike under the labour law. While having noted this statement, as well as the Government’s previous indications that this section had never been applied in practice, and referring also to the explanations provided in paragraph 128 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour, the Committee reiterates its hope that the necessary measures will be taken, on the occasion of the next revision of the Criminal Code, in order to amend section 117 so as to remove strikes pursuing economic and social objectives affecting the workers’ occupational interests from the scope of sanctions under this section, with a view to bringing this provision into conformity with the Convention and the indicated practice.

The Committee previously referred to certain provisions under which workers of state enterprises were prohibited from striking, this prohibition being enforceable with sanctions of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour). The Committee noted that the new State Enterprise Labour Relations Act B.E. 2543 (2000) also prohibits strikes in state enterprises (section 33), violation of this prohibition being punishable with imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) for a term of up to one year; this penalty is doubled in the case of a person who instigates this offence (section 77). The Committee recalled, referring to the explanations provided in paragraph 123 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour, that the imposition of penalties of imprisonment involving compulsory labour on striking employees would be compatible with the Convention only in the case of essential services in the strict sense of the term (i.e. services whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population), and that a blanket prohibition of strikes in all state-owned enterprises, if enforced with penalties involving compulsory labour, is incompatible with the Convention.

Having noted the Government’s indications in its report that the Ministry of Labour is planning to conduct research and an in-depth study to review the effect of such law enforcement, the Committee expresses the firm hope that the necessary measures will at last be taken in order to bring the State Enterprise Labour Relations Act into conformity with the Convention, and that the Government will soon be able to provide information on the progress made in this regard.